<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4954A530.5030207@piratpartiet.se" type="cite">I'd
go as far as to say that PP.se cannot support a writing that explicitly
grants rightsholders a say in the wording of copyright legislation.<br>
</blockquote>
Sad to hear that. Even more sad to be aware that you weren't there to
propose alternatives when the Manifesto drafts were developed.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4954A530.5030207@piratpartiet.se" type="cite">Likewise,
copyright legislation needs to explicitly exclude the rightsholders
from having a say in its wording. <br>
<br>
To say that they are part of the balance means that they somehow can
agree or not agree to new legislation. That's insanely backwards --
that's just as if the abovementioned military town were to be given to
accept or reject a new national security policy. <br>
</blockquote>
If you are willing to develop a law about Information Society, I think
that internet users, ISPs, etc, should be taken into account; if the
law is about real estates and the estates market, I think house
builders, house owners, house owners <i>wannabies</i>, etc, should be
taken into account; if its about the labour market, I think trade
unions, employers organizations, etc, should be taken into account.
Would you exclude, e.g., employers, house builders or ISPs from any of
those lawmaking procedures? and internet users, house owners <i>wannabies</i>
or trade unions? I hope you wouldn't.<br>
<br>
Prior to all, I must point that -using Spanish example, where biggest
RMO has 85.000 members, though less than 1.000 have more than half of
voting rights (thus actually the 85.000-member RMO only represents
those less than 1.000)- <b>when I talk about stakeholders, concerning
authors, I don't talk about those who pretend to be stakeholders, but
real stakeholders and all stakeholders</b> -i.e., representatives from
copyrighted works authors who disagree with the pro-copyright lobbies
(thus, as they disagree with the lobbies, they're keen to debate and
make agreements), and representatives from copyleft authors; if both
are present, I wouldn't be quite sad if pro-copyright lobbies (i.e.,
those less than 1.000) storm away from the negotiating table-.<br>
<br>
PIRATA's Statute, article 2.a.3: "<i>we seek to open a dialogue between
each of the implicated collectives
and the society, in order to find proper solutions that satisfy all
sides</i>"; honestly I believe that, in order to achieve
consensus-driven, longlasting agreements, all stakeholders have to be
taken into account; and, as long as author's rights exist -moral and/or
material, any of both-, I believe -based on the Statute of the pirate
party where I belong- that authors should also be in the negotiation
table.<br>
<br>
Of course, if you want a law to be passed at any cost and one of the
stakeholders takes a blocking, destructive, uncooperative attitude
-i.e., <i>I don't want any of my current status suffer any
retrogressive measures</i>-, even storming away from the negotiating
table, you may put that part aside and continue without them; however,
unless you make such an excellent work in the law new wording, if you
make the law without any authors involved since the very beginning, I
believe it would become a lesser or bigger failure -i.e., the excluded
part will be severely dissatisfied and it will bring a (higher or
lower) social unrest (the biggest and relevant the excluded part, the
higher the social unrest); you may say <i>I can live with it</i>,
however, it should be, in the national scope, a decision from the
respective pirate party; and in the international scope, a joint PPI
decision-.<br>
<br>
I think there are here two starting points:<br>
<br>
- which legal starting point is chosen by each pirate party; e.g.,
PIRATA chooses UDHR (in general, though specifically for this issue,
article 27, plus the articles concerning freedom of speech, privacy,
etc, as they all are related)<br>
- which goals are aimed by each pirate party in a lawmaking procedure;
e.g., while not always is possible, the highest possible consensus is
our desired goal<br>
<br>
If any of the PPI list members has a different starting point than UDHR
-or none at all (though I think that, while starting from an existing
legal framework is evolutionary, starting from none is revolutionary; I
prefer evolution, specially when considering hot issues like
irretroactiveness)-, please let us now. And while consensus is always a
tough duty, if any stakeholders is exclude since the very beginning it
makes it impossible -one can reach consensus with oneself, but the idea
is to reach consensus with all people involved in a given issue-.
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>